Spoilers Secret Invasion grade and discussion

[Anwar]

That Dr. Strange movie had a lot of problems. Throwing Wanda's character and story under the bus is just a symptom of much more fundamental issues.

I got what they were supposed to be. The part that confused me is why anyone thought a bunch of stuffy werido snobs with major 'Eyes Wide Shut' vibes (yes I know that movie came much later) was even slightly interesting (or appropriate!) for this kind of franchise. I remember watching those episodes as a kid and being thoroughly bored just looking at them.

As for Sinister; he had a memorable design, I'll give him that, but very one-note next to the likes of Magneto.

They were Chris Claremont trying to see how far he could get away with his fetishes in the books.

Mr Sinister suffered from Claremont dragging his feet and not explaining his true plans for the character before he left and not telling anyone else, so later writers gave him an origin that was in no way what his creator planned.

Originally Mr Sinister was going to be revealed to be a robot/artificial lifeform being controlled by the "real" Mr Sinister, a mutant whose power was immense intelligence and immortality...but the side effect was that he was stuck at the form he was in when his mutation activated. A 10 year old boy.

That's why Mr Sinister had a silly name and an over-the-top design, he was literally meant to be the creation of what a kid would think a cool supervillain would look like.

Of course, even this original idea for Mr Sinister made little sense because Claremont never bothered explaining why this immortal kid mutant would choose to be evil to begin with.

 

[Charles Phipps]

They were Chris Claremont trying to see how far he could get away with his fetishes in the books.

Mr Sinister suffered from Claremont dragging his feet and not explaining his true plans for the character before he left and not telling anyone else, so later writers gave him an origin that was in no way what his creator planned.

Originally Mr Sinister was going to be revealed to be a robot/artificial lifeform being controlled by the "real" Mr Sinister, a mutant whose power was immense intelligence and immortality...but the side effect was that he was stuck at the form he was in when his mutation activated. A 10 year old boy.

That's why Mr Sinister had a silly name and an over-the-top design, he was literally meant to be the creation of what a kid would think a cool supervillain would look like.

Of course, even this original idea for Mr Sinister made little sense because Claremont never bothered explaining why this immortal kid mutant would choose to be evil to begin with.

Well not everyone bats a 1000.

And Sinister cemented his villain cred with the Morlock Massacre.

 

[Reverend]

As a thirteen year old, the Hellfire Club ladies were certainly memorable.

Well I was like 10 or 11, so it didn't exactly hit the same.

Originally Mr Sinister was going to be revealed to be a robot/artificial lifeform being controlled by the "real" Mr Sinister, a mutant whose power was immense intelligence and immortality...but the side effect was that he was stuck at the form he was in when his mutation activated. A 10 year old boy.

That's why Mr Sinister had a silly name and an over-the-top design, he was literally meant to be the creation of what a kid would think a cool supervillain would look like.

Of course, even this original idea for Mr Sinister made little sense because Claremont never bothered explaining why this immortal kid mutant would choose to be evil to begin with.

Now see that at least is an interesting starting point, and honestly you never really need a reason why a creepy immortal kid is evil. Adults need motivations and nuanced characters. Kids are by their nature more emotional, less introspective beings, and when bestowed with that kind of power it's easy to imagine how quickly they'd go off the rails. Twilight Zone's 'It's a Good Life' certainly jumps to mind.

 

[Charles Phipps]

Oh, in addition to Wanda and Jean Grey, we have Daenerys as an example of incredibly popular female characters going nuts once they become the most powerful characters in a setting.

 

[Starkers]

The first episode was ok, but it felt very reminiscent of the Zygon Invasion/Inversion but more importantly coming just a few months after Picard S3 gave us shapeshifters engineering a takeover it just doesn't feel very fresh (and I appreciate that the original comic book predated both examples I've used, though you could argue DS9's changelings predated the comic so YMMV)

 

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

Oh, in addition to Wanda and Jean Grey, we have Daenerys as an example of incredibly popular female characters going nuts once they become the most powerful characters in a setting.

Yes, but that was telegraphed from the very beginning.
Targaeryans have repeatedly been mentioned as one step removed from insanity and giving them power usually pushes them over.
With only a few exceptions to the rule.
The show played with our expectations by making her appear sympathetic to the exploited’s cause.
But every time she had the chance to be vengeful, she took it.

 

[Anwar]

Oh, in addition to Wanda and Jean Grey, we have Daenerys as an example of incredibly popular female characters going nuts once they become the most powerful characters in a setting.

I mean, as bad as the Avengers vs X-Men story was (Wolverine being the real villain who no one ever called out), it at least gave us Phoenix Cyclops to show us how the male version of that would work out and made it just different enough from Jean's Dark Phoenix.

 

[Starkers]

Yes, but that was telegraphed from the very beginning.
Targaeryans have repeatedly been mentioned as one step removed from insanity and giving them power usually pushes them over.
With only a few exceptions to the rule.
The show played with our expectations by making her appear sympathetic to the exploited’s cause.
But every time she had the chance to be vengeful, she took it.

It still amazes me people don't get this. Yes the handling of her final step over the edge could have been better, but there were moments going all the way back to her first few episodes that showed what she was really like. She liked being loved, and I think in her own mind never thought of herself as a villain, but just because she was pretty and said the right things it doesn't mean her heart was ever as noble as it appeared to be.

 

[Anwar]

The problem with Daenerys is that she was a major POV character and her story bits made everyone who opposed her always be a 1-Dimensional Buffoon with no valid points against her (Viserys, particularly) and had most everyone love her like Jorah and then have Barristan show up and say "Well, I didn't want to help your brother so I waited till he was dead but I'll happily support you!"

Readers were so taken with this, it never occurred to them that maybe she wasn't the Epic Heroine the story made her out to be.

 

[Charles Phipps]

It still amazes me people don't get this. Yes the handling of her final step over the edge could have been better, but there were moments going all the way back to her first few episodes that showed what she was really like. She liked being loved, and I think in her own mind never thought of herself as a villain, but just because she was pretty and said the right things it doesn't mean her heart was ever as noble as it appeared to be.

Take note that she also was one of the few individuals to show compassion to the lower classes and an idea to reform the hellish feudal system. Oh and is a victim of human trafficking and sexual abuse. You can guess why a lot of people felt making her Hitler at the end was a bit...suss.

"You know who is the worst? The person who hates slavery."

 

[Commander Troi]

Does Jean Grey really count though?

In this specific story, Valente shows how making her Cosmic left them with no idea what to do with her besides kill her. Valente also does worse to her character than killing her, because she's mean.

 

[The Wormhole]

it felt very reminiscent of the Zygon Invasion/Inversion

Indeed, and in much the same way as that Zygon storyline was meant to be an allegory on Islamophobia, this seems to have shades of be an allegory on modern day immigration matters.

Just making an observation, that's not meant to be criticism or negative comment.

 

[Starkers]

Take note that she also was one of the few individuals to show compassion to the lower classes and an idea to reform the hellish feudal system. Oh and is a victim of human trafficking and sexual abuse. You can guess why a lot of people felt making her Hitler at the end was a bit...suss.

"You know who is the worst? The person who hates slavery."

She showed compassion to the lower classes because they loved her. Seriously did that shot of lovely blonde white woman surrounded by people of colour worshipping her not show exactly what was going on?

She committed horrendous atrocities most of the way through, but people forgave her because she only punished bad people, it's the Tarantino cheat as I call it, your heroes can get away with being terrible so long as the people they kill are the worst of the worst (rapists, Nazis, the Manson family) it was always on the cards that her temper and viciousness might one day be turned against less villainous types. Throw the Targaryen propensity towards madness into the mix and it's a perfect storm.

As I said, I don't think they necessarily stuck the landing, but I think that's where she was always going to touchdown, it should have just been a lot smoother.

 

[Charles Phipps]

She showed compassion to the lower classes because they loved her. Seriously did that shot of lovely blonde white woman surrounded by people of colour worshipping her not show exactly what was going on

You could certainly argue that was the interpretation. Do you know who disagreed with that interpretation? Emilia Clarke.

Also a huge chunk of fans.

And even if that was the authorial intent:

1. The intent didn't come over for a huge chunk of the audience.

2. It's an awful idea and built from sexist tropes.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I had occasion to see the premier episode a second time, and I had some thoughts that I'll share. (Of course, they could easily all be wrong. I've not read the comics.)

First of all, I believe it was G'iah who made the point to the new recruit that part of the purpose of retaining human form for prolonged periods was to better fool not only humans but also other Skrulls. The fact that they went out of their way to mention this means that we have been given reason to doubt pretty much everyone's identity, even when other Skrulls think they know who they're interacting with.

That means, for example, that we don't know that the G'iah who met with Talos was really G'iah, and for that matter we don't know that it was really Talos with whom G'iah met. Given that what happened in the square did not go the way G'iah supposedly planned, deception regarding G'iah's identity either at that meeting or in the square during the bombing seems a real possibility.

Second, given especially that Gravik was first seen as an unidentifiable shadowy figure behind frosted glass, we can't positively identify him as any of the characters posing as him. Can he really be the same Skrull posing as the girl with the rainbow ball? How could he get around that much? It makes sense he would be at the square at the end. However, how would he just happen to be where Fury was abducted at the moment he was abducted? That's very coincidental, unless there is a reason. Perhaps the Gravik seen in the cafeteria is not the real Gravik.

Since there was a Skrull present when Fury was abducted, how do we know that Falsworth isn't actually a Skrull?

It's of course obvious to wonder whether Hill is a Skrull for the purpose of wondering whether she is really dead. But consider another coincidence. In the bar when she was trying to play chess with Fury, she echoed doubt about Fury's sharpness that was almost verbatim what Falsworth had said. If the proximity of the girl with the rainbow ball to Falsworth's men when Fury was abducted casts doubt on Falsworth's identity, then does the fact that Hill echoed Falsworth's words suggest that that Hill in the bar was a Skrull too, perhaps even the same one, perhaps even the real Gravik?

Maybe Gravik is posing as Falsworth?

Just some ideas.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Ironically, Mr. Sinister is basically a reminder of the Magneto inverse. Which is to say that it's nice to have a deep rich morally ambiguous character but Mr. Sinister is always good for a thoroughly disgusting mad scientist and complete monster. He also fits into their milieu by being a eugenicist.

I've always been of the opinion that if you want a Mr. Sinister story done right, just use Dark Beast instead. Sinister is the fictional personification of a JJ Abrams style mystery box. It's always layer after layer after layer of secrets and hidden agendas with him, and absolutely none of them ever actually go anywhere.

Dark Beast has all the good parts of Sinister without the obssessively pretentious writing. He just really is addicted to learning about everything no matter how small or who gets hurt in the process. Plus, taking a bit of the epic evil grandiosity out of the equation makes him feel far more like a real life Mengele figure which I think is way more fitting for the world of the X-Men than Sinister's laughably overcomplicated Victorian eugenecist with world altering ambitions.

It should also be noted that Doctor Strange and The Multiverse of Madness is heavily criticized in feminist fandom circles (there's a lot of them online) as much worse than Wandavision's take on it.

The reasoning for it being basically boiled down to:

1. It's a Doctor Strange movie, not a Scarlet Witch or Scarlet Witch and Vision movie
2. Doctor Strange's alternates flat out destroy universes and other stuff but Wanda is treated as irredeemable
3. Doctor Strange had a similar arc of being driven mad by magic but his evil self ends up redeemed as well
4. The story writes her out perfunctorily at the end.

How is Strange's evil self redeemed? He died for his sin just like Wanda did.

Take note that she also was one of the few individuals to show compassion to the lower classes and an idea to reform the hellish feudal system. Oh and is a victim of human trafficking and sexual abuse. You can guess why a lot of people felt making her Hitler at the end was a bit...suss.

"You know who is the worst? The person who hates slavery."

Even taking into account the finale, Dany was nowhere near the worst from that show. She just wasn't one of the genuinely good ones like Jon.

 

[Charles Phipps]

I've always been of the opinion that if you want a Mr. Sinister story done right, just use Dark Beast instead. Sinister is the fictional personification of a JJ Abrams style mystery box. It's always layer after layer after layer of secrets and hidden agendas with him, and absolutely none of them ever actually go anywhere.

Dark Beast has all the good parts of Sinister without the obssessively pretentious writing. He just really is addicted to learning about everything no matter how small or who gets hurt in the process. Plus, taking a bit of the epic evil grandiosity out of the equation makes him feel far more like a real life Mengele figure which I think is way more fitting for the world of the X-Men than Sinister's laughably overcomplicated Victorian eugenecist with world altering ambitions.

Sinister is a character when you write him well, he's very menacing and when you write him poorly, he's an utter trainwreck. I especially hate when they try and write him "funny" because he's absolutely not a funny character. If you were a fan of Madelyn Pryor before she became a constant source of mockery and fanservice, he's especially horrifying. Sinister being a Victorian scientist with all the racism and eugenics that implies works great. However, when you make him ruler of the Universe and pair him with Apocalypse, he gets ridiculous.

However, Dark Beast I feel like ruins the character of Hank McCoy who has always been one of my favorite X-men. Ever since the Age of Apocalypse, they've acted like he was one step away from becoming a monster when he was always best as the kindest and gentlest of the X-men but for Colossus.

Even taking into account the finale, Dany was nowhere near the worst from that show. She just wasn't one of the genuinely good ones like Jon.

I dunno, I actually lost most of my respect for Jon Snow because of how they were treating him. The fact he killed Daenerys versus trying to redeem her made him look like a pretty reprehensible guy. Then again, it's lucky for him that the Targ madness skipped him arbitrarily.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Sinister is a character when you write him well, he's very menacing and when you write him poorly, he's an utter trainwreck. I especially hate when they try and write him "funny" because he's absolutely not a funny character. If you were a fan of Madelyn Pryor before she became a constant source of mockery and fanservice, he's especially horrifying. Sinister being a Victorian scientist with all the racism and eugenics that implies works great. However, when you make him ruler of the Universe and pair him with Apocalypse, he gets ridiculous.

However, Dark Beast I feel like ruins the character of Hank McCoy who has always been one of my favorite X-men. Ever since the Age of Apocalypse, they've acted like he was one step away from becoming a monster when he was always best as the kindest and gentlest of the X-men but for Colossus.

I can understand the pov, but I have no problem believing our Hank as kind and gentle just because Dark Beast exists. Literally any version of a character can exist in the multiverse. That's why it's the multiverse.

I dunno, I actually lost most of my respect for Jon Snow because of how they were treating him. The fact he killed Daenerys versus trying to redeem her made him look like a pretty reprehensible guy. Then again, it's lucky for him that the Targ madness skipped him arbitrarily.

I don't know if he killed her 'trying to redeem her'. Though, admittedly it's been a few years and I may have forgotten something. Seemed to me he just didn't feel like he had any other choice but to stop what was happening and she wouldn't allow it to be stopped otherwise.

As for the madness, sure it's kind of arbitrary how it makes him the good guy because the writers wanted it that way.

On the other hand, though, it kind of isn't. Considering the Targaryens proper are full of incestual couples which presumably concentrates the madness even more whereas Jon also has Stark genetics and the Starks are consistently portrayed as the best of all the noble families in Westeros from the very beginning of the story, plus from the nurture side of the equation Jon was raised by Ned Stark and Dany primarily by her horrible brother. So sure, it could be considered arbitrary in that it didn't necessarily have to turn out that way. But it's also not exactly shocking that one of these kids turned out better on a fundamental level than the other one.

 

[Charles Phipps]

Sorry, I meant I was upset that Jon killed her rather than trying to redeem her. He goes to elaborate lengths for everyone else and just went to killing Daenerys.

But probably best to go back to SI,

 

[The Nth Doctor]

I had occasion to see the premier episode a second time, and I had some thoughts that I'll share. (Of course, they could easily all be wrong. I've not read the comics.)

First of all, I believe it was G'iah who made the point to the new recruit that part of the purpose of retaining human form for prolonged periods was to better fool not only humans but also other Skrulls. The fact that they went out of their way to mention this means that we have been given reason to doubt pretty much everyone's identity, even when other Skrulls think they know who they're interacting with.

That means, for example, that we don't know that the G'iah who met with Talos was really G'iah, and for that matter we don't know that it was really Talos with whom G'iah met. Given that what happened in the square did not go the way G'iah supposedly planned, deception regarding G'iah's identity either at that meeting or in the square during the bombing seems a real possibility.

Second, given especially that Gravik was first seen as an unidentifiable shadowy figure behind frosted glass, we can't positively identify him as any of the characters posing as him. Can he really be the same Skrull posing as the girl with the rainbow ball? How could he get around that much? It makes sense he would be at the square at the end. However, how would he just happen to be where Fury was abducted at the moment he was abducted? That's very coincidental, unless there is a reason. Perhaps the Gravik seen in the cafeteria is not the real Gravik.

Since there was a Skrull present when Fury was abducted, how do we know that Falsworth isn't actually a Skrull?

It's of course obvious to wonder whether Hill is a Skrull for the purpose of wondering whether she is really dead. But consider another coincidence. In the bar when she was trying to play chess with Fury, she echoed doubt about Fury's sharpness that was almost verbatim what Falsworth had said. If the proximity of the girl with the rainbow ball to Falsworth's men when Fury was abducted casts doubt on Falsworth's identity, then does the fact that Hill echoed Falsworth's words suggest that that Hill in the bar was a Skrull too, perhaps even the same one, perhaps even the real Gravik?

Maybe Gravik is posing as Falsworth?

Just some ideas.

Those are some great thoughts. I do wonder if they're getting too deep into the weeds, but the promotion interviews have been hyping up the mistrust factor even when you think you know what's going on.

I particularly like your point about both Maria and Farnsworth noting the same things about Fury, although I expect that'll be more of a thematic element than a spying aspect. But I could be wrong.

Definitely some thoughts to consider for further episodes.